7.5.3. International repositories

Although some technical aspects of international repositories are considered in section 3.5.3, it is worth considering some of the wider aspects of such repositories further here. In earlier years, e.g., in the 1950s as the IAEA was formed or in the 1970s as the major International Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) project was carried through, the concept of international facilities was generally supported. There were proposals for fuel cycle centres (e.g., at Gorleben in Germany) where all of the relevant activities, including disposal, could take place and also be offered as a service to other countries. Indeed, the early reprocessing countries accepted that the residual HLW of foreign customers would be disposed of in the country providing the service (i.e., France, UK, Russia).

In the late 1970s, opposition to accepting foreign wastes grew and further reprocessing contracts in France and the UK required the return of HLW and other residues to the customer. Later, the view that radioactive wastes should be neither imported nor exported became more widely promoted, in particular by environmental organisations. This led national disposal programmes that were in a sensitive siting phase to try to avoid discussions on the subject or even to introduce policies or laws forbidding import of wastes. In turn, the IAEA, which in the early 1990s had supported specific studies on the topic, also reduced its activities.

More recently, however, the subject of shared repositories has again been increasingly debated. The potential advantages of countries sharing centralised facilities for storage and disposal of radioactive waste are generally recognised. They include increased global nuclear safety and security, as well as improved local and regional economics. One reason for the more open discussion of these benefits is that some countries (such as Sweden and Finland) have effectively passed the sensitive siting stage and have made clear, by law, that they will not import wastes. A further reason is that there are increasing security concerns about SF and other wastes being stored in numerous countries, often without a definite plan for their long-term disposition. The availability of shared repositories could ease this situation. The third reason is the increasing realisation that many small countries with limited nuclear power programmes may not have the technical and financial resources to implement costly deep disposal facilities.

What are the current positions across the globe on this question? The international bodies acknowledge the potential benefits and both the IAEA and the EU are supporting work on the concept. The IAEA organised a working group that produced a report on multinational repositories (IAEA, 2004) and the EU, recognising the needs of its present applicant countries, is funding a study, entitled SAPIERR, on European regional repositories (SAPIERR, 2006). Nevertheless, some countries remain strongly opposed to international repositories (e.g., Germany, UK); some have no intention to import or export but do not dispute that this might be a sensible route for others (e.g., USA, Sweden, Finland). At another extreme, some would definitely prefer international disposal (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia); finally some explicitly keep both national and international options open (e.g., Switzerland, Belgium, Czech Republic).

Different approaches to developing multinational repositories or storage facilities have been proposed or tried. They can be classified as follows:

Top-down decision by a national government: this approach implies direct support at political levels for an initiative to host a multinational repository. Proposals of this